4 ms·

Feels like some serious mistake has been made on prosecution. You still did wrong even if you paid for the damages. That should not change the overall process

by nicce 2y ago

Feels like some serious mistake has been made on prosecution. You still did wrong even if you paid for the damages. That should not change the overall process.

shadowgovt 2y ago
And indeed, there will still be a trial. It's just that it will be a trial by judge instead of by jury. This is the story of the prosecution playing hardball with the defendant's rights, and succeeding. Good on them, they basically got the American taxpayers some money out of Google for free.
- nicce 2y ago
  There is a lot at stake in here. Single judge has all the power now. It sets baseline for future cases. Jury would have also included more about the emotional aspect (ethics and morals), while judge views only the law. I am not sure, if that is a good thing here, and Google knows that. They can pay for lawyers.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Yep. It's win-win; both parties have something to gain.
malfist 2y ago
Certainly seems like bribery is being accepted here
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Non-trained misunderstandings of the law like this are exactly what Google is trying to avoid by keeping a case like this out of the hands of the jury.
batch12 2y ago
I don't love Google, but putting that aside for the sake of argument- They seem to be following the process backed by the 7th amendment which was validated by a judge. Google paid the damages that the government claimed they owed. I agree that the prosecution made a mistake if they miscalculated. If the government didn't miscalculate the damages then what more should Google have paid? Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case.
- nicce 2y ago
  > Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case. It works in two directions. It is now less likely that ethics or morals have much weight for the final decision. I would argue that these were not in the side of Google. They can pay for lawyers who know the law, which is more important when there is only single judge.

by nicce 2y ago

Feels like some serious mistake has been made on prosecution. You still did wrong even if you paid for the damages. That should not change the overall process.

shadowgovt 2y ago

And indeed, there will still be a trial. It's just that it will be a trial by judge instead of by jury. This is the story of the prosecution playing hardball with the defendant's rights, and succeeding. Good on them, they basically got the American taxpayers some money out of Google for free.

nicce 2y ago
There is a lot at stake in here. Single judge has all the power now. It sets baseline for future cases. Jury would have also included more about the emotional aspect (ethics and morals), while judge views only the law. I am not sure, if that is a good thing here, and Google knows that. They can pay for lawyers.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Yep. It's win-win; both parties have something to gain.

malfist 2y ago

Certainly seems like bribery is being accepted here

shadowgovt 2y ago
Non-trained misunderstandings of the law like this are exactly what Google is trying to avoid by keeping a case like this out of the hands of the jury.

batch12 2y ago

I don't love Google, but putting that aside for the sake of argument- They seem to be following the process backed by the 7th amendment which was validated by a judge. Google paid the damages that the government claimed they owed. I agree that the prosecution made a mistake if they miscalculated. If the government didn't miscalculate the damages then what more should Google have paid? Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case.

nicce 2y ago
> Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case. It works in two directions. It is now less likely that ethics or morals have much weight for the final decision. I would argue that these were not in the side of Google. They can pay for lawyers who know the law, which is more important when there is only single judge.